Jay Kuten: Act's demise not just about Brash

Now that the hustings are taken down, the bunting stored away, the balloons all deflated or ascending stratosphere-ward, it's time to reflect on the elections we've just endured. As a disappointed old American pol expressed it, "The people have spoken - damn them".

There is much to be learned from comparisons with the US, but in the case of political behaviour not so much. We can be grateful that elections in New Zealand are a quiet affair, largely civil and devoid of corrupt practices - well, nearly. I certainly think the teapot party in Epsom represented a curve ball - or, as some say here, a googly. But all's well that ends well. The dismal showing of Act is proof of the existence of an engaged deity, or at least of karmic destiny. As an editor of this paper blogged, Don Brash may be the only man to resign as head of two parties in the past five years. And if he were to essay yet a third party, someone may need to find a wooden stake.

In Wanganui the electorate, as per usual, remained uninfluenced by my suggestion, even when offered tongue-in-cheek. Hamish McDouall was not elected as our primary MP, although he made a good showing. The most heartening thing about defeat is the civility of both Hamish and Chester Borrows and their supporters. The round of applause Hamish received when he appeared at Chester's headquarters is a demonstration of the best that is in us.

What are we to make of the overall results for the country? True, National was returned for another go. Their 50 per cent vote total sounds like a resounding endorsement for their policies. But is it? I have my serious doubts. What does it mean that Act, which promotes National's themes of asset sales and a free hand to environmental polluters and a total faith in unfettered market forces, was nearly eradicated with a dismal three per cent showing. Surely that can't all be attributed to the anti-charisma of Don Brash.

When you consider that the Greens did remarkably well with their 10 per cent - this despite any residue of fear left over from the nanny days of Sue Bradford - you have to give them their due respect.

What people said with that vote for the Greens was "wait a minute". They simply aren't prepared to sell off New Zealand's pristine patrimony for a mess of pottage. I strongly suspect that far from a mandate for National's policies, the electoral rise of the Greens signals a need for a brake on those total mercantile impulses.

As if it were not enough to have ascendancy of the Greens, along has come New Zealand First which promises to be a strong counterweight to National. As several observers have noted, Winston Peters' presence is bound to make for interesting times at the Beehive. I have to admit to having a warm spot in my heart for Winston. Even when you disagree with him, he's still a lot of fun. And now that Rodney Hide's gone, we'll need a few laughs in the chamber.

Labour's poor showing at 27 per cent, while it does reflect on the leadership of Phil Goff, says more about the failure of Labour to have and to communicate good ideas. Simply a promise to reduce GST on fruits and veges doesn't cut it. For Labour to win in three years or sooner, it must not only bring up some new younger articulate, representatives, but they must be able to articulate a solid programme, one that deals with promotion of employment through support for skills training and development of innovative small manufacture. It's not enough to simply be in opposition to asset sales. And as for the environment, well, the Greens have that covered.

Labour needs to come up with new ideas and a sense of passionate engagement with those programmes. If not, it could become even more weakened and be subject to a takeover bid from the outlying likes of Don Brash.